Transcript Highlights:

• Senator Kavanaugh votes aye. Senator Epstein, how do you vote? Senator Kavanaugh votes aye.
• Senator Ortiz votes no. Senator Gabaldón, how do you vote? Mr. Gabaldón votes no.
• And you vote? I vote no. Thank you.
• All those in favor vote aye; those opposed vote no. The Senate will now proceed to vote.
• Speaker Pro Tem, I vote aye. President votes aye.

Keywords: 1182, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The polling votes are available on the website. If you have any difficulties, please do contact us.
• They are the people who vote for you, and they're the people you need to serve, not multibillion-dollar
• For these reasons, I respectfully request that the committee vote favorably on these two bills.
• As an 18-year veteran of the park, I strongly urge this committee to vote yes on these bills to protect
• And we follow similar procedures, with layered security and alcohol supervisors.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on House Bill 452, a right-to-repair bill for agricultural equipment. Farm Bureau and several manufacturers’ representatives opposed the bill, arguing that existing memorandums of understanding already provide farmers access to parts, diagnostics, and repair information, and warning that broader software access could increase emissions tampering and safety risks. Supporters, including repair advocates, a legislator, and a farmer representative, argued that the MOUs are not binding, that farmers need enforceable repair rights to avoid costly delays during critical harvest periods, and that owners should be able to repair equipment they bought without dealer lock-in. No vote was taken during the hearing. The committee also heard testimony on bills to limit or eliminate “grab-and-go” alcohol sales at large venues, including House Bill 325 and Senate Bill 225. Union workers from Fenway Park and the TD Garden described self-checkout alcohol kiosks as creating public safety and compliance problems, including underage access, over-serving, theft, and difficulty monitoring intoxication in crowded settings. They said workers are often understaffed and bear discipline when violations occur. In contrast, the Boston Red Sox and Aramark defended the supervised self-checkout model, saying it speeds service, is widely used, and operates with multiple layers of supervision, training, and regulatory oversight; they said they had not received violation notices and that any incidents are isolated. Senator Edwards also testified in support of House Bill 369, aimed at restricting marketing of certain harsh cosmetic products to children, and in support of the grab-and-go bill. She argued that children should not be targeted with products containing toxic chemicals and that alcohol service should remain supervised by trained staff to protect consumers and jobs. Senator Collins and other legislators also spoke in favor of restricting grab-and-go alcohol service, citing concerns about underage drinking and overconsumption. The hearing additionally included a separate bill on Sunday morning alcohol service, with Representatives Scanlon and Lewis arguing for allowing sales beginning at 8 a.m. on Sundays rather than 10 a.m., but that bill was only discussed briefly and no action was taken.

Transcript Highlights:

• and what are the procedures that we do when we do uh have bonding money that goes out the door, but
• And if we already have a procedure, um, I'll be glad to look at that.
• And if we already have a procedure, um, I'll be glad to look at that.
• and what are the cancellation procedures and what are the procedures<00:36:36.800> that<00:36
• vote to change an earlier appropriation. vote to change an earlier appropriation.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Um I would that particular procedure.
• those procedures on their own<00:22:08.880> livestock.
• Um, I don't think the procedure itself is particularly difficult. It's not hard to learn.
• Um, I don't think the procedure itself is particularly difficult. It's not hard to learn.
• Um, I don't think the procedure itself is particularly difficult. It's not hard to learn.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• and willingness to listen to concerns as we put together House File 2433 and then also to help find votes
• to get it off also to help find votes to get it off the<00:00:53.760> floor.
• .<01:21:09.840> Section<01:21:10.920> 18<01:21:11.920> defines procedures.
• Section 18 defines procedures.
• <01:25:23.840> for the district procedures for the district procedures for communications<

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Senator Charlie votes yes. Senator Duhigg votes no. Senator Azelle votes no.
• Senator Munoz votes yes. Senator Nava votes yes. Senator O'Malley votes yes.
• Senator Ramos votes yes. Senator Sanchez votes no. Senator Scott votes no.
• Senator Block votes yes. Senator Lanier votes no. Senator Paul votes no.
• Voting no. Senator Lopez, voting no. Senator Woods voting no.

Transcript Highlights:

• I just have a quick procedural question: are we planning to lay this over, or are we voting on the bill
• I can say to the Chair and, Chair Latz, that if we're going to vote on this today, I'm a no vote.
• I can say to the Chair and, Chair Latz, that if we're going to vote on this today, I'm a no vote.
• I can say to the Chair and, Chair Latz, that if we're going to vote on this today, I'm a no vote.
• You know, if we're going to vote on this today, I'm a no vote.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So, we'll vote on the amendment first. Is there any further discussion?
• has<00:38:36.320> not<00:38:36.560> also<00:38:37.599> um<00:38:38.320> voted
• <00:38:38.720> on our our board has not also um voted on our our board has not also um voted
• > place<00:44:50.079> like<00:44:50.640> uh<00:44:51.119> complaint procedures
• in place like uh complaint procedures in place like uh complaint process<00:44:52.079> for<00

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• If you are not a district, you do not have a vote in that process.
• But as a practical matter, they do not have a voice and they do not have a vote.
• And I think it's designed that way so that everybody has a vote in that.
• And they had been voting? They had... well, do you want to go for it?
• That's got to be voted on and the district won't be officially created.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The board will be voting on these updates at our next board meeting later this week.
• Three, we have meticulously implemented fair process and procedure.
• And they are guided by the procedures that talk about the basis for taking action.
• It identifies all the provisions of CMTC's law and procedures that are believed to have been violated
• There apparently was no policy or procedure for per diem for travel.

Summary: The joint sunset oversight hearing reviewed five regulatory entities: the Board of Behavioral Sciences, the Board of Psychology, the Physician Assistant Board, the Podiatric Medical Board, and the California Massage Therapy Council. Across the hearing, each entity described recent accomplishments, licensing and enforcement workload, workforce shortages, and efforts to modernize processes. Common themes included streamlining licensure, expanding access to care, addressing telehealth or emerging technology, and balancing consumer protection with workforce needs. For the Board of Behavioral Sciences, members discussed workforce shortages in mental health, supervision barriers, telehealth confidentiality, AI in therapy, interstate compacts, school-based services, and military spouse licensure. The board said it has expanded outreach, improved licensing processes, and created temporary practice authority tracking, while also expressing concern about counseling compacts and emphasizing California-specific law, ethics, and cultural competency. Public commenters supported the board’s work and the possible move to a national MFT exam, while also urging more resources. The Board of Psychology highlighted fee adjustments, streamlined licensure pathways, enforcement process improvements, new CPD requirements, and proposed changes including a psychotherapist-client privilege exception for investigations. Committee members and public witnesses focused heavily on that privilege proposal, with some members opposing it as too broad and privacy-invasive, while the board argued it is needed to obtain records in bias and sexual misconduct cases. The board also discussed workforce shortages, processing improvements, and the use of inactive status for psychological associates. The Physician Assistant Board reported growth in the PA workforce and education programs, SB 697 implementation, and financial pressure from rising enforcement costs. The main policy debate centered on physician-to-PA ratios and practice agreements, with board representatives and many public commenters arguing that current restrictions limit access to care, especially in rural areas, while the California Medical Association defended the need for explicit ratios and agreements. The board also discussed AI, fee increases, and tracking temporary practice authority. The Podiatric Medical Board described licensing and renewal reforms, residency expansion, enforcement support, and budget constraints, while public testimony raised concerns about a proposed fee increase and about reimbursement parity and practice recognition for podiatrists. Finally, the California Massage Therapy Council defended the certification model over licensure, citing lower costs, local government collaboration, anti-trafficking work, and its role in vetting applications and disciplining bad actors; no formal votes or final actions were taken during this portion of the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• I respectfully urge your aye vote. Thank you.
• Please vote yes.
• Please vote no on this bill. I'm Margaret Okuzumi.
• Please vote no. Thank you.
• I will get another chance to vote on this formally.

Summary: The Assembly Education Committee held a special hearing on AB 715, with the authors presenting the bill as a response to rising anti-Semitism in K-12 schools. The authors said the measure is intended to strengthen protections for Jewish students, improve district accountability, expand the uniform complaint process, clarify protections related to religion and nationality, and create a state-level anti-Semitism coordinator. They emphasized that the bill was developed through collaboration with the Black, Latino, AAPI, and Jewish caucuses and argued it is meant to protect all students from hate while preserving legitimate classroom discussion. The hearing included extensive public testimony. Supporters, including students, parents, rabbis, Jewish organizations, and some educators, described harassment, biased curriculum, delayed or ineffective school responses, and fear among Jewish students and families. They urged the committee to act to make schools safer and more responsive. Opponents, including teachers, ethnic studies advocates, civil liberties groups, Palestinian rights advocates, and some Jewish parents, argued the bill was rushed, vague, and could chill academic freedom, censor discussion of Palestine and Israel, and expand complaints against teachers and school districts. Several witnesses said existing complaint and anti-discrimination systems already address these issues. Committee members then questioned the authors and witnesses about implementation, definitions, and possible effects on curriculum and school boards. The authors said the bill is still intent language and that details would be refined in further negotiations with stakeholders. Representatives from the California School Boards Association and California Teachers Association raised concerns about the new language and possible unintended consequences, while ACLU California Action said it had concerns but wanted to keep working on the bill. The transcript does not show a final vote or action taken on AB 715 during this hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• to focus on areas where we had something in place already, where we had mechanisms, processes, procedures
• to focus on areas where we had something in place already, where we had mechanisms, processes, procedures
• Since 2020, I have undergone over 70 medical consults, procedures, and surgeries.
• Even before the elections this week, over the past three years, there were over 170 override votes held
• across the state, and many municipalities are planning to look at the overrides and debt exclusion votes

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Revenue held a hybrid hearing on several property and local tax bills. The main focus was H.56, the Municipal Empowerment Act, which the Healey-Driscoll Administration, the Massachusetts Municipal Association, MAPC, and Salem Mayor Dominick Pangallo supported as a package of local options and administrative reforms. Supporters said municipalities need more tools to relieve pressure on property taxes and fund services, citing proposed increases to local meals and lodging taxes, a new local vehicle excise surcharge, senior property tax relief, one-year override flexibility for emergencies, and central valuation of telecom and utility property by DOR. The administration said the bill was based on municipal listening sessions and was intended to give cities and towns optional, not mandatory, revenue tools. Opponents, including the National Federation of Independent Businesses, argued the tax increases would hurt restaurants, hotels, tourism, and small businesses and add to affordability concerns. The committee also heard testimony on H.3211, dealing with deeds excise receipts, from Norfolk County Commissioner Richard Staidi. He said Norfolk County is financially stable but needs additional revenue for major capital needs at its agricultural school, especially a new cafeteria and other aging facilities, and also to support county programs such as veteran transportation services. On S.2020, a bill to allow settlements of tax liability, Greater Boston Legal Services, the Asian American Civic Association, and several individual taxpayers urged creation of a more workable offer-in-compromise process at DOR. They said the current system is too subjective, requires an unaffordable $5,000 threshold, lacks clear standards and appeal rights, and leaves low-income taxpayers stuck with unmanageable debt, license suspensions, or business closures. Supporters said the bill would give both taxpayers and DOR a practical way to resolve liabilities and bring people back into compliance. The committee also took testimony on S.1966, which would require nonprofits selling property to disclose any back-tax obligations to buyers. Senator Peter Durant said the bill was prompted by a personal experience in which a tax bill arrived after a nonprofit property purchase was already completed, and he argued the disclosure would prevent buyers from being surprised by retroactive tax liability. No votes were taken during the hearing, and the chair closed the session after hearing from all scheduled witnesses.

Transcript Highlights:

• I would like to motion to suspend all necessary rules and procedures to take up and consider HR 335.
• And their answer wasn't tough luck, vote them out in 4 years.
• The Supreme Court can amend the rules of civil procedure, and I welcome your ideas for changes along
• Our own procedures promote the efficient administration of justice as best they can, and we're doing
• Both by simplifying and streamlining the law and the rules of procedure, as I mentioned, But also by

Transcript Highlights:

• victim support, funding for institutions to be more physically secure, and funding for security procedures
• Please vote favorably on H. 2208 and S. 1411 for the parents who are suffering silently and for those
• Please vote favorably on H. 2208 and S. 1411 for the parents who are suffering silently and for those
• Research shows that they are less likely to receive full explanations about procedures and are more likely
• we move forward, these docket bills will be passed favorably from committee, and that they will be voted

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Mental Health, Substance Use, and Recovery held a public hearing on 17 bills focused on behavioral health workforce shortages, studies, and commissions. Chairs Mindy Domb and Senator John Velis opened by emphasizing the severity of the Commonwealth’s mental and behavioral health workforce crisis, the resulting gaps in access to care, and the legislature’s ongoing use of loan repayment programs, studies, and commissions to address these issues. They outlined hearing procedures and noted that testimony would be limited to three minutes, with written testimony also accepted. A major portion of the hearing focused on bills to expand the primary care workforce, including H. 2205/S. 1385, which would broaden eligibility for the Mass RePay loan repayment program. Testimony from the Massachusetts Medical Society, Senator Jo Comerford, and Dr. Kate Atkinson described severe primary care shortages, long wait times, physician burnout, high debt burdens, and the need to recruit and retain physicians in more practice settings and regions. Committee members asked about the likely impact of loan repayment, the role of nurse practitioners and physician assistants, and how to prioritize limited funding. Witnesses argued that primary care investment improves access and outcomes and that the bill would help sustain community-based practices. Another large block of testimony supported H. 2208/S. 1411, the proposed perinatal behavioral health care workforce trust fund, often referred to as the Moms Matter Act. March of Dimes, perinatal mental health advocates, doulas, clinicians, parents, and organizations such as the Boston Public Health Commission and Empty Arms Bereavement Support testified that postpartum depression, anxiety, substance use, and grief are widespread, often untreated, and worsened by long waitlists and a shortage of trained, culturally competent providers. Speakers repeatedly stressed that screening alone is not enough without a workforce to provide timely treatment, and several shared personal stories of postpartum illness, loss, and difficulty accessing care. The bill was also framed as a needed complement to the Commonwealth’s recent maternal health law, which increased screening and therefore increased demand for treatment. The committee also heard support for the Bridge Act, H. 2207/S. 1388, which would create mental health capacity grants for organizations serving communities at high risk of hate crimes or hate incidents. Testimony from the Jewish Community Relations Council and the bill’s sponsor described the mental health harms of hate, including anxiety, trauma, isolation, and loss of trust, and argued that community organizations need resources to build resilience and provide support. In addition, the committee heard from the Massachusetts Mental Health Counselors Association on H. 2218/S. 1380, which would update job classifications to explicitly include licensed mental health counselors and licensed supervised mental health counselors in state behavioral health roles. Witnesses said the change would modernize hiring, expand access, and better reflect current licensure and scope of practice. No votes were taken during the hearing, and the session ended with a motion to adjourn after all testimony was completed.

Transcript Highlights:

• have addressed last year by providing us with a councilmatic approach for our council not to take the vote
• away from the people, just to get the vote to the people so they could consider it in the first place
• So we see procedural challenges, cultural challenges, and then financial challenges.
• But procedurally, you heard a few of the comments from Alon and Jill before him that we do have a number
• to properties located in the unincorporated area for water and sewer, but residents do not get to vote

Summary: The committee held a work session on local government issues, beginning with an update from the State Building Code Council on four legislatively mandated code amendments now in CR-102 rulemaking: temporary emergency shelters, reduced minimum dwelling unit size, multiplex housing up to three stories and six units, and single-exit apartment buildings up to six stories. Council staff also described a separate embodied-carbon appendix proposal that remains under public review, with testimony both supporting and opposing it. Members asked about the rationale for some of the code limits, including the restriction on connecting multiplex buildings. The committee then heard a panel on annexations from MRSC, Pierce County, and the Association of Washington Cities. Witnesses reviewed annexation methods, including petition, election, and interlocal agreement approaches, and said larger annexations are increasingly using interlocal agreements because they can address infrastructure, revenue sharing, and public process concerns. They described barriers such as inconsistent local standards, the cost of infrastructure, referendum risk, census requirements, and the difficulty of persuading residents and local officials to support annexation. Members asked about the five-year restriction on residential zoning changes in one annexation method and whether a hearing examiner could reduce political pressure on local decision-makers. A second panel discussed subdivision reform. The Master Builders Association urged raising the short-plat threshold within urban growth areas to 30 lots as a simpler first step, citing permitting delays and added housing costs. The City of Spokane described implementation problems with recent housing laws, including uncertainty about how to review plats under HB 1110, lot-splitting administration, and added notice requirements for unit lot subdivisions. AWC said there was broad agreement that subdivision decisions should be more administrative, but public hearings remained a point of disagreement. The committee also heard from FutureWise, the Washington State Association of Counties, and Lewis County on county development regulation and enforcement, with witnesses emphasizing underfunded code enforcement, inconsistent standards between counties and cities, and the need for better coordination, incentives, and possibly stronger enforcement tools. No votes were taken; the chair said the committee would continue working on possible solutions in future sessions.

Transcript Highlights:

• if we have standards, you need to understand because my colleagues and I definitely don't want to vote
• I mean, it talks about driving procedures, installation criteria, it talks about all these different
• Is that going into regulating the plant overseas, or is that going into a project-specific procedure?
• They're not accountable to the people through any vote.
• So for patients that have had to have a treatment, a surgery, or have undergone some medical procedure

Bills: HB1163, HB1168, HR252, HR253, HCR103, HCR108, SB80, SB131, SB251, SB254, SB279, SB384, SB414, SB468, SB469, SB496

Keywords: fireworks, retail sales, fire safety, legislation, holiday celebrations, construction standards, precast concrete, DOTD, building regulations, minimum requirements, public projects, private projects, consumer protection, credit card fees, cash transactions, rounding practices, transparency, low-income, economic impact, residential construction

Transcript Highlights:

• here legally, then my proceed<00:20:32.720> or<00:20:32.960> the<00:20:33.200> procedure
• <00:20:33.600> I've<00:20:33.919> always proceed or the procedure I've always proceed
• or the procedure I've always understood<00:20:35.039> was<00:20:35.360> they<00:20:35.600
• This just gives of a judicial procedure.
• >> Yeah, we voted on that and then Yeah, no >> Yeah, we voted on that and then Yeah, no worries

Keywords: Judiciary, Division B - Room 409, 3 February, 2026; 9:00 A.M., 925, all

Summary: The committee took up several criminal justice and public safety bills. Senator Sparks explained SB 2416, which would let a law enforcement officer who tests positive on an initial drug screen obtain a more invasive follow-up test at the officer’s expense; if the second test is negative, the first result would be treated as a false positive and the officer’s certification would not be put at risk. The committee also heard SB 2228, which would reduce the waiting period for certain felony expungements from five years to three years, following a recommendation from the criminal justice task force. Members discussed how expungement remains discretionary with the court and does not change which offenses are eligible; the bill passed committee after a motion and voice vote. The committee then considered a committee substitute for SB 21108, a combined bail bill. Counsel said it would require suspension of a bail agent’s license when there is a civil judgment, exclude credit card transaction fees from authorized bail fees, clarify requirements for cash deposits in lieu of surety or property bonds, bar unsecured judicial release for bail-restricted offenses, and allow courts to assess service-of-process costs against bail agents in certain failure-to-appear cases. A reverse repealer was added, and the committee voted to pass the committee substitute. Finally, the committee heard SB 2114, which would expand state immigration enforcement efforts by allowing DPS to collect information on illegal aliens, codifying participation in the federal 287(g) program, and creating state penalties for certain unlawful entry and criminal conduct by undocumented persons, including enhanced penalties for violent or sex offenses. The sponsor and counsel said the bill is intended to work with federal law and includes exemptions for certain federal immigration statuses and a provision allowing some nonviolent defendants to agree to deportation in lieu of prosecution. Members raised concerns about enforcement, probable cause, and unintended consequences, but the sponsor said the bill would require proof of entry through the Gulf of Mexico for the new entry offense and that the measure would enhance cooperation with federal authorities.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have vote sheets for everyone from the committee who is not here, although we anticipate a few more
• probably a question you can't answer, but I certainly would like to at least hear something as to procedurally
• it's probably a question you can't answer, but I certainly have to at least hear something as to procedurally

Keywords: 993, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Agriculture Committee met and first took up five bills. It reported S.593 (land used in agricultural production), S.879A (the Garden Protection Act), S.3277 (transfer-on-death beneficiaries for farming implements), and S.4754 (creating an Office of Urban Agriculture). S.1529A, the Carbon Farming Act, was moved to the Finance Committee. The committee briefly discussed S.4754, with Senator Borrello asking about its status and members noting strong support for urban agriculture and food-system resilience; the bill was then reported to Finance by voice vote. The committee then heard from Julie Suarez, Associate Dean for Land Grant Affairs at Cornell CALS, who described Cornell’s role in research, extension, and public service across New York agriculture. She highlighted Cornell’s economic impact, growth in FFA participation including new urban chapters, dairy investment, and the potential of the maple industry, while emphasizing the need for continued agricultural science funding to address climate change, invasive species, and market challenges. She also pointed members to Cornell programs supporting food entrepreneurs, soil health, small farms, veterans entering agriculture, and community integrated pest management. Members asked questions about tick increases, with Suarez attributing them to deer, rodents, climate change, and invasive species, and said Cornell’s community IPM program offers landscaping and prevention guidance. She also explained Cornell’s land-grant and contract-college structure, including its statutory mission and state support. The meeting ended after members expressed interest in further outreach and informational sessions, and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• Should we take a vote on that?
• intended for dismantling or scrapping require a formal title, leading to an unnecessary administrative procedure
• intended for dismantling or scrapping require a formal title, leading to an unnecessary administrative procedure

Bills: SB35, SB249, SB546, SB1353, SB1493, SB2246, SB1902, SB1029

Keywords: transportation, TxDOT, Texas Department of Transportation, road projects, highways, infrastructure, bridge construction, interchanges, corridor improvements, road widening, railroad grade separation, sound barrier, unified transportation program, legislative notice, project prioritization, capital projects, state highway system, Farm-to-Market Roads, San Antonio, Harris County

Transcript Highlights:

• So there's four of these and uh is the vote done by proxy in terms of the voting the board members?
• So there's four of these and uh is the vote done by proxy in terms of the voting the board members?
• know, voting that needs to take place. know, voting that needs to take place.
• every credit union has voting by proxy. every credit union has voting by proxy.
• Yes, they did state earlier that that would be the vote when it's voting on there.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first held a public hearing on Senate Bill 25, which would allow state-chartered credit unions to compensate board members if the membership approves it. Prime sponsor Senator Dan Innis said the bill is enabling only, intended to help credit unions recruit and retain qualified directors and align New Hampshire with other states that already allow such compensation. Credit union representatives from the Cooperative Credit Union Association and St. Mary’s Bank supported the bill, saying board service has become more complex because of cybersecurity, asset-liability management, and other regulatory demands, and that compensation could be modest and take forms such as meeting fees or educational reimbursement. In response to committee questions, they said compensation would be set by the membership, disclosed in advance, and subject to bylaws and internal policies; they also noted that board members must be credit union members and that voting procedures vary by institution, with some using mailed ballots rather than proxy voting. Members raised questions about why credit union boards were historically excluded, what kinds of compensation were contemplated, whether there would be a cap, and how voting and confidentiality would work. Testimony explained that the historical rationale was the nonprofit, volunteer mission of credit unions, but witnesses argued that the modern environment and competition for talent justify a change. They also said the bill would not mandate compensation and would not create a salary structure comparable to banks, but would allow members to approve modest compensation or reimbursements. After no further testimony, the chair closed the public hearing on Senate Bill 25. The committee then opened a public hearing on Senate Bill 26, sponsored by Senator Howard Pearl, concerning the definition of deposits in land sales and escrowed accounts. Pearl said the bill would clarify that buyer funds for upgrades and luxury items in new-home construction are not treated as refundable deposits that must be held in escrow, arguing that the current Attorney General interpretation raises builder costs, increases home prices, and can limit buyer choices. He said the proposal would allow those upgrade funds to be paid directly to builders for construction, with signed disclosures making clear that the buyer requested the items and bears the risk if financing falls through. The hearing on Senate Bill 26 had just begun when the transcript ended.